4.5 Article

SWISS NATIONAL COMMUNITY SURVEY OF FUNCTIONING AFTER SPINAL CORD INJURY: PROTOCOL, CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTICIPANTS AND DETERMINANTS OF NON-RESPONSE

期刊

JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION MEDICINE
卷 48, 期 2, 页码 120-130

出版社

FOUNDATION REHABILITATION INFORMATION
DOI: 10.2340/16501977-2050

关键词

spinal cord injury; community survey; study protocol; study participation; response bias; non-response; patient characteristics; data quality

资金

  1. SwiSCI study - Swiss Paraplegic Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To detail the protocol, recruitment, study population, response, and data quality of the first population-based community survey of the Swiss Spinal Cord Injury (SwiSCI) Cohort Study. Design: The survey consisted of 3 successive modules administered between September 2011 and March 2013. The first two modules queried demographics, lesion characteristics and key domains of functioning. The third module collected information on psychological personal factors and health behaviour; work integration; or health services and aging. Participants: Community-dwelling persons with chronic spinal cord injury in Switzerland. Methods: Descriptive analyses of the recruitment process, participant characteristics, and correspondence between self-reported and clinical data. Determinants for participation and the impact of non-response on survey results were assessed. Results: Out of 3,144 eligible persons 1,549 participated in the first two modules (cumulative response rate 49.3%). Approximately three-quarters of participants were male, with a median age of 53 years, and 78% had traumatic spinal cord injury. Record-linkage with medical records demonstrated substantial agreement with self-reported demographic and lesion characteristics. A minimal non-response bias was found. Conclusions: The community survey was effective in recruiting an unbiased sample, thus providing valuable information to study functioning, health maintenance, and quality of life in the Swiss SCI community.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据